Re: Re: PHOTO: cameras

----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Mann" <lmann@icx.net>
> I have a Hewlett Packard Photosmart 210, bought for ~$150 at WalMart
> last Christmas (special sale). I wound up spending another ~$50
> eventually for a larger flashcard (where the digital camera stores
> pictures) and a USB port flashcard reader, plus I was given a tripod,
> which is really helpful since this camera doesn't have 'thru the lens'
There are digital cameras with through the lens view but
$ 1000 + price.
> viewfinder. It's easy to use, point and click, with digital zoom &
> macro (sort of like zoom).
Digital zoom is worthless you can do excactly the same thing with the same
picture with the same photo with software. Most good cameras have an optical
zoom 2x or 3x. A 10x optical will give you problems because of the small
size of the lens to get enough light. Take the film shoot and click cameras
that have a 180 zoom. You must use a very fast film 400 t0 800 speed to get
a picture when the sun is not shineing.
> Drawbacks - it eats batteries fairly
> regularly & won't operate on regular AA batteries (needs those expensive
> silver colored 'e' AA batteries);
Mine works with all types of batteries. I use regular and nicad rechargeable
batteries. and it eats both kinds. I can get about 48 picks on one set max.
Or one set trying to figure out how to set the camera. Uses AAs.
> pix are out of focus on closeups; it's
> hard to get close shots of flowers centered buy using the viewfinder
A view finder is a must in bright sun. You can not see the display very
good. I can turn the display off saving battery life.
> (almost have to use the display screen - easy with a tripod, much more
> difficult when hand-held); it's kind of junky - the little on/off &
> display switches don't work 100% of the time so it gets stuck (just like
> our PCs do) occasionally & batteries have to be removed to 'reboot'.
>
> As another non-photographer, I wanted the cheapest digital camera I
> could find that would take pictures of irises that were recognizeable,
> both for my own use, for rhizome sales, & to post photos of unknowns for
> help in IDing. I'm sure the photos I've posted make some folks cringe
They look great to me Linda.
> at the lack of resolution, but I have been really satisifed with what I
> got for my money.
If you are happy that is great. For the money you can work around the small
problems.
> Linda Mann east Tennessee USA zone 7/8
I bought a Olympus C-3000 with 3x zoom with 3.4 million pixels, which is
over kill for my needs. I wanted the 2.1 but was talked into the bigger
one.
I am happy with it but it has so many features, who has time to figure them
out. It will take 90 sec videos with sound an pictures with sound. I have
not tried either.
I use a software < Corel Print House Magic> ( not for Mac) it has a photo
software to. About $10 lately. It is pretty easy to use.
Bring up a photo in the Corel photo and right click on it. Click on
properties and you can change the size of the picture for the web. I
usually take 1600x1200 250 KB sized pictures witch are full sized for my 17"
screen. The reduce the size for the web. And save both copies.
I have printed them out on 8.5 x 11 paper and the look great. I have a HP
720 printer 3 years old that does very good. I also have a Epson Photo 780
with 6 colors than prints a picture 4 x6 from the 250 KB files that is as
close to film as I have ever seen. I am SUPER happy with it even if it eats
ink.
Mike Greenfield
redear@infinet.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/